grok_mcp_discover_self

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool exposes information, consistent with a read-only operation. No additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or authentication needs are disclosed, but the simple nature of the tool means minimal gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters, the presence of an output schema, and annotations indicating safe read-only behavior, the description fully informs the agent what the tool does and when to use it. No additional context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter information. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not add extra but is adequate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool exposes OKF bundle information, WebMCP manifests, and tool schemas, using the specific verb 'exposes' and identifying distinct resources. It differentiates from sibling tools like grok_mcp_status or grok_mcp_restart_container.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions 'zero-configuration agent onboarding' as a clear use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough for selection among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.